Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.